Great! If we are talking the same language that is. I'm talking about real-life gliders, no models. With two similar gliders I mean, for instance, two LS-4's, where one is unmodified and the other is modified with your enhancements. For certain types (like the LS-4 ) I can supply the unmodified one. When could your prototype be ready and certified??

[...]But motion is not a REASON of Force it's a REACTION of an EXTERNAL force[...]

is wrong.since F=dp/dt (where p is the momentum - and motion means momentum), there is force where p changes. and this will basically be the case at every (classical) interaction between two or more objects.

also

Quote

[...]But the first question would be, why should the Fluid accelerate itself just because there is an obstacle?[...]

well let me try this: imagine a traffic jam, caused by road works. the velocity v1 of the cars just before the construction area is obviously determined by the velocity v2 of the cars passing the narrow point.you might say: "well, if i pick one car, it could move with always with velocity v2." but this would only work if some nice drivers wait and let that car pass trough.there might be this case, but it wont make a difference if you are just counting how many cars can pass in a given timespan.replace the cars with fluid or gas particles and the road with the tube and we have the answer to your question.

this should hopefully clear up two things:- the equations you are mentioning are describing the whole system, not individual particles. and used like this they are correct.- you are talking about a system consisting of many particles/bodys. there is no "the fluid"/itself you could reefere to like a single object.

to give another example of how a many-body system can accelerate "itself": blow up a balloon and let it go without knoting. well, you might notice, the air will accelerate right out of the balloon. you seem to misunderstand the concepts of pressure.

i hope thats enough "falsification", without going further than the first few lines, since i cant find any concrete formulation of your "theory".you should work on a scientific proof that your wings with "turbulence operated flaps" is giving a benefit, eg. via the proposed real life test, if you are not capable of a formal proof.

also i dont really see this

Quote

Fluid creates Fractal bodies as a correct Answer on mechanical behaviour of Fluids

it is not unusual to observe chaotic behavior there, since you are dealing with a many-body system, but i dont see the use in calling chaos "Fractal bodies". Are you trying to find a fractal formula for describing this specific chaotic behavior? well good luck then. i hope you succeed, it would contribute a lot to fluid physics.

sorry Felix, but thisis wrong.since F=dp/dt (where p is the momentum - and motion means momentum), there is force where p changes. and this will basically be the case at every (classical) interaction between two or more objects.

1.) well as you can clearly see in my graph above, that i DID exactly this. In the graph i displayed how the momentum in a Fluid is interchanged in aninelastic collision 2.) Also: F=m*a so without a reaction force you have only motion if mass is exposed to a acceleration field. Motion happens only if you apply additional EXTERNAL forces to a mass.Have you ever solved mechanic equations? if there is an inequality in the mecanical forces, the remaining forces causes acceleration.

third law of newton says: every force must have a contradictionary force. in dynamics it's the acceleration who gives the contradictionary force to pressure dropwhere p=F/A

only in an External Gravity Field there happens a spontaneus motion without an external force. but this external field again is caused by the earths mass.

Bernoulli claims the existence of a acceleration field like gravity, but as third law of newton claims an origin, there is None!

also well let me try this: imagine a traffic jam, caused by road works. the velocity v1 of the cars just before the construction area is obviously determined by the velocity v2 of the cars passing the narrow point.you might say: "well, if i pick one car, it could move with always with velocity v2." but this would only work if some nice drivers wait and let that car pass trough.there might be this case, but it wont make a difference if you are just counting how many cars can pass in a given timespan.replace the cars with fluid or gas particles and the road with the tube and we have the answer to your question.

It's an old example explaining bernoulli. but hey. where is the pressure AFTER the traffic jam? if bernoulli is right, then the traffic jam should come back after the obstacle (e.g. closed lane due roadworks or accident)

you just gave an example of flow speed equal to source free divergent flow

Q=V/s -> Q= A*v

A1*v1 = A2*v2

But this doesn't answer my question of the origin of the field in Bernoulli.the acceleration field can only be explained if there is a global pressure drop. equal to the acceleration needed to pass the narrow cross section as contradictionary force.

Instead what is criticized here is not volume and mass conservated flow of incompressible Fluids, But the definition of acceleration fields. Due Newton. This pressure drop like explained in Bernoulli cannot be compensated, otherwhise it would violate against Newtons third law.

this should hopefully clear up two things:- the equations you are mentioning are describing the whole system, not individual particles. and used like this they are correct.- you are talking about a system consisting of many particles/bodies. there is no "the fluid"/itself you could reefer to like a single object.

to give another example of how a many-body system can accelerate "itself": blow up a balloon and let it go without knoting. well, you might notice, the air will accelerate right out of the balloon. you seem to misunderstand the concepts of pressure.

Ok. Easy to falsify this.

1.) your balloon has a higher pressure inside than the environment outside.2.) if you claim the above to be right, then the air should also go through the entrance of the balloon if i take a needle and blast it as proved quite obvious, your air will no longer go through the entrance of your broken balloon because i compensated the pressure betweeninternal volume to external volume.3.) the acceleration and thus pressure of the air inside the balloon is caused by the spring force of the balloon gum. 4.) so the origin of the balloon's acceleration is therefore the potential energy stored in the spring force of the balloons gum.

5.) take an old balloon where the spring force of the gum has released. would it accelerate the air the same way out of the balloonlike a new balloon? NO.

i hope thats enough "falsification", without going further than the first few lines, since i cant find any concrete formulation of your "theory".you should work on a scientific proof that your wings with "turbulence operated flaps" is giving a benefit, eg. via the proposed real life test, if you are not capable of a formal proof.

- i see no falsification delivered here. where did you falsify my statements so far?- it's rather the point, that i could prove, that your balloon and your traffic examples did so far not work (take a needle and test it )- the questions i posed were not answered: "where comes the origin of an acceleration in bernouli's model when all forces are compensated? - impossible mechanics!"

also i don't really see this it is not unusual to observe chaotic behavior there, since you are dealing with a many-body system, but i don't see the use in calling chaos "Fractal bodies". Are you trying to find a fractal formula for describing this specific chaotic behavior? well good luck then. i hope you succeed, it would contribute a lot to fluid physics.

well if you read the statements properly you would know why. instead of solving a caotic system based on non linear equations i render the internal statics up to the point where they become instable.it would be a new method finding instable moments in a emergent system.the non-linear behaviour in my model is defined not internally but due externall information into the system.

by this it can be explained that all physically systems are amplifiers of external information.

...as there is still a long way to go, these statements in this thread are just the fundament of that "new house".

Realy nice presentation with video. I kind of like this idea, probably becouse fractals involved.But for the proof of this concept it lacks some rigid proof. Such as two small plane models equal in all parameters exept one with "feathered" wing thrown at equal force/ released from same height but flying different lenght/time or something like that.

I hope we will avoid straw men and ad hominem argumentation and stick to examining the principles.

I am sure the principle of conservation of dynamic pressure and header pressure is sound.The Bernoulli set up for his experiment needs to be examined to answer the question of where the pressure gradient comes from. One also needs to differentiate between hydrostatic pressure in a dynamic flow and stall pressure in a dynamic flow.

The interesting point that Felix is making is that the principle is a first order approximation. The more accurate description involves feedback pressures and vorticity in the flow. This is in fact recognised already in fluid dynamics, but usually only discussed in compressible flows in this particular way. However it is known and studied in incompressible flows like the venturri flow.

Is anybody here a fluid mechanic? The goal is to describe or model the flow of fluids in the boundary layer, and then to describe the impact of that flow on the surrounding fluid whether in flow or not, including the propagation of that impact.

The proposition is that this is a fractal pattern of vorticular flows entrained in the free flowing fluid and interacting with a boundary which may or may not have boundary layer characteristics of flow.

The free flow region has traditionally relied on iterating grid conditions, until Runge Kutte. Felix is proposing establishing a fractal pattern to describe the potential flow resultant and then iterating the potential solution to an increasingly more accurate one, where regions of instability describe where the flow will derive its extra details from.

His first guess, based on Newtonian mechanics, is that hyperbolic streamlines may form the skeleton of the result, with branches of more detail coming from these. A hyperbolic geometric fractal might be a good start to see what is possible.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 03:34:30 PM by jehovajah »

Logged

May a trochoid of ¥h¶h iteratively entrain your Logos Response transforming into iridescent fractals of orgasmic delight and joy, with kindness, peace and gratitude at all scales within your experience. I beg of you to enrich others as you have been enriched, in vorticose pulsations of extravagance!

Nice video! Seems to indicate that smaller turbulent vortices evenly distributed lead to a greater stability in the superstructure. Like a storm wall breaking waves into smaller wavelets.

Doing more work in the flow to maintain or conserve matter means a less turbulent flight. The energy used to rock the wing is instead used to stabilise it!

« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 11:57:47 PM by jehovajah »

Logged

May a trochoid of ¥h¶h iteratively entrain your Logos Response transforming into iridescent fractals of orgasmic delight and joy, with kindness, peace and gratitude at all scales within your experience. I beg of you to enrich others as you have been enriched, in vorticose pulsations of extravagance!

1. The model that stalls has its center of gravity too much to the rear. The only thing that all your post-it memo's do is move the center of gravity to the front. Adding a little weight to the nose would generate the same result (and probably have your model fly a lot farther...).

2. The reason that your modified wing design doesn't move as much as the unmodified design in your "wind tunnel" is that it is much heavier then the unmodified design, which makes it difficult to follow the turbulent flow that exists in (the exit of) your "wind tunnel".

Please tell me where I'm wrong FnF

Logged

All I want is a warm bed, a kind word and unlimited power (Ashleigh Brilliant)

2. The reason that your modified wing design doesn't move as much as the unmodified design in your "wind tunnel" is that it is much heavier then the unmodified design, which makes it difficult to follow the turbulent flow that exists in (the exit of) your "wind tunnel".

Please tell me where I'm wrong FnF

Although it sounds a reasonable explanation, it is not fluid mechanical. The behaviour of the first aerofoil follows classic wing generated turbulence, which the wind tunnel generated turbulence would only exacerbate.

Weight forces do not promote aerofoil stability!

Logged

May a trochoid of ¥h¶h iteratively entrain your Logos Response transforming into iridescent fractals of orgasmic delight and joy, with kindness, peace and gratitude at all scales within your experience. I beg of you to enrich others as you have been enriched, in vorticose pulsations of extravagance!